i'm going anonymous the same as everyone else, once the cowards start putting they're names to comments i will, though i think the 7 deseved to go! they were just troublemakers(for the record they weren't sacked) i rent a car the same as some of the others, and i just want to go to my work without getting every punter asking whats happening(gets a bit tedious),the way i look at it the 22 are mostly getting on a bit and could have just decided that they were fed up with the hassle and just sold the office(like clydebank toa just up the road which i think was the troublemakers(7 and others still there) alterior motive )i've been driving taxi's a long time now and things are hard for everyone, but we just need to get on with it(if you are not happy in 1 office, go to another which is the way things have been done in the TAXI TRADE forever!!!!), it's nothing new to the lot of them

Got to disagree with the last comments. To sack 10 people without due process and no right of appeal is unacceptable in any industry or business in 2010/11. If these workers were justly sacked then they should have been given the reasons in writing backed up with evidence to allow them to defend themselves and contest their dismissal.

These Drivers were not sacked,due to their actions the radio rental service provided to them was removed. As in all walks of life you are accountable for your actions, they got their just deserts. A Driver from Wrights Taxis has just had his Radio Rental Services removed for exactly the same reasons. When they are running their own company they will do exactly the same. Come down off your high horse and get real !

What was the unacceptable behaviour? The taxi trade will need to understand that Victorian Employment Practices are not acceptable in West Dunbartonshire. Workers have rights and are entitled to natural justice, not kangaroo courts held in secret with no minutes taken.

the unacceptible behavior ? howabout threatening and derogetary remarks to those drivers who wanted nothing to do with their campaign,howabout all the lies and misinformation they and you have been telling our customers and the wider public via the press,eg we are selling the company,-LIARS,we are raking of thousands every week- LIARS,the biggest lie of all though "they were sacked"LIARS because you repeat a lie over and over does not make it any less of a lie, you cannnot sack someone whom you dont employ! as the councils own legal officer said in the report called for by you and the liars you support.i quote they are not employed by T.O.A they are customers they rent a service from the company FACT a fact you still continue to ignore,now they are getting desperate and showing their true colours for all to see one of thier objections to T.O.A getting their new licence is to blacken the name of an employee of T.O.A because their adult son was convicted of drug offences which they would never have condoned as they had already lost a child to a heroin overdose, what has this got to do with T.O.A as far as i am concerned anyone who would use these kind of tacticts are SCUM and i cannot understand how any decent person especialy a councilor can condone such tacticts,its just as well we are not all held accountable for what our adult children got up to!!i used to hold you in great regard jim but since getting involved in this campaign against what has always been a successful and reputable company i feel you have let yourself down badly as a result sadly i have lost a lot of respect for you,finaly i noticed you did not comment on the earlier poster who told you that allen wright had got rid of a driver last friday the 2nd in a couple of months, are you going to conddemn him? are you and the LIARS you support going to the local press? will the lennox print it i doubt it i did inform them but i wont hold my breath!i wont hide behind annonimity like all the other cowards and LIARS,i deal in FACTS AND THE TRUTH, brian rainey.

Brian,You miss the point. I have no way of knowing if the drivers are guilty of what you say they are guilty of. Everybody is entitled to defend themselves when accused of something. TOA denied this right to the sacked drivers. Can you elaborate on what lies I have been telling your customers? Can you be specific and give me names and what I have meant to have said? When and where did I say "you were raking of thousands of pounds".It is wrong for any Taxi Company to take away a persons employment with no investigation, no due process, no right of appeal which is against natural justice. Mr Wright is as wrong as TOA to act in this manner. I got involved as some of those sacked by TOA were my Constituents and I have a legal duty to represent them, which I done after they approached me for advice and assistance. We are supposed to live in a democracy and I am all for being open, transparent and being held to account publicly for my actions which no doubt I will be come the elections. The sacked drivers as you know are setting up a workers Coop which I think is an excellent idea and will hopefully lead to a bit of calm and stability in the local Taxi services. I respect your right to have your say Brian, that is why I have published every comment made regarding this matter on my Blog.

well jim i can think of a couple of lies of the top of my head,1)the drivers were sacked LIE, they were never employed,2)you have told several people we are going to sell the company LIE,3)we took away their living LIE, they are still working,T.O.A did do investigations you know as well as i do people dont always want to put their names to their allegations but when the same names are continiualy mentioned it does not take a genius to work out there must be some truth in it ,they also openly accussed every owner of theft,fraud,tax evation,reported us to the police,companys house,asked the council to investigate and after all that we were cleared by all of the above,you talk of evidence jim where is their evidence to all these allegations? they have never produced one shred of proof to any of their allegations so its all lies,i challenge you to show me any proof of these drivers employment come on jim prove me wrong by the way jim if as you say these guys are going to set up their own company why are you and they still objecting to T.O.A getting their new licence?revenge? talking of objections you never commented on the disgusting use of an employees personal grief to get at T.O.A what about her rights, by the way i and she are also your constituents

Brian,This is getting a bit tedious. Name the people I have told that you are going to sell TOA. The TOA Solicitor admitted at the hearing on 1/3/2011 that no investigations were carried out into the sackings? Who is telling the truth? You say the 22 have all been accused openly of fraud, theft & tax evasion by the sacked drivers, so no doubt you will be taking them to court for defamation? Get them into a court and make them prove what you say, they have said. I can only speak for myself and I will defend and justify every word I have said regarding this matter, I cannot be held responsible for what others say, regardless of what the issue is. The drivers I have spoke to don't want revenge they want justice, something they never got from the TOA board. To secure the new licence the TOA board will need to demonstrate they are "fit and proper persons" to hold a licence...in my opinion the board have a long way to go till they can demonstrate those qualities.

i will tell you whats tedious jim you continualy deflecting and refusing to answer the questions and points i have put to you just like a true politicion,and that is twice you have ignored my point about the rights of our employee!!

you did not say anything thats my point!! i was simply trying to know if you condone the guys you support using one of T.O.A"S employeees personal family grief as a valid objection? read my first post again

My objection will only refer to the applicants i.e. the Directors, not employees. I have never seen any of the other written objections submitted for the hearing on 1/3/2011 nor will I be privy to any new objections submitted for the next hearing.

What you and most others are failing to understand about the taxi trade, Jim, is that it doesn't operate like, for example, a supermarket.

Imagine you worked in ASDA. If you spent your working hours threatening your collegues, reporting unproven and ridiculous lies about the board and the running of the company to the local press and to every customer you presented a card and saying "here, go to Tesco, this place is terrible". You wouldn't be seen for dust.

Of course the big differance in that scenario is that at ASDA you would have a contract of employment. The drivers are employed by TOA in the same way I'm employed by Telewest because I pay monthy for their tele service. If this sounds ridiculous, it's because this whole thing IS ridiculous.

Mr Bollan, I urge you to read the report produced by your own legal officer, who doesn't gather his evidence from the smoldering cauldrens of the gossiping taxi ranks. Every issue raised by these drivers are bulletpointed, explained, disproved and essentially buried. His only concluding issue is that "the two parties have become entrenched". For no viable reason it would seem. These disgruntled drivers are raging but they haven't decided on what their raging about yet.

Mr Bollan, the motives behind your objections could be one of two things. Either you have genuine concerns and you have a sincere opinion. If this is the case, I would ask what you base this opinion on? The furious ramblings of gossiping troublemakers? The questionable printings of the Lennox Herald, which shouldn't be allowed to operate anything remotely close to an ink cartidge? Read the recommendations in that report Mr Bollan. Ask to see evidence. Legal evidence, contracts of employment, that sort of thing.

Either that, or you are already well aware of the facts, yet you still insist on objecting, in which case you have no right to be a counciler.

Rational Thought.I appreciate the Taxi trade is not the same as ASDA. If the allegations you refer to were made against an ASDA employee, the employee would be suspended, an investigation would take place which would hear both sides of the case, then action if appropriate would be taken by the management. The employee if disciplined would have a right of an independent appeal against any sanction imposed. People constantly chastise me for not "understanding" how the Taxi trade operates. The problem is I fully understand how the Taxi trade operates and it is completely unacceptable and devoid of any natural justice which is outrageous in 2011. Based on the view this is how Taxi companies have always operated and therefore should be allowed to continue with draconian management practices, we would still have children going up chimneys. You may or may not be aware but the legal managers report was drawn from comments/information from the Board of TOA exclusively, NONE of the sacked drivers were interviewed nor was their written submissions included in the report you refer to. Why? Because the legal manager instructed the Taxi licensing officer not to interview any of the sacked drivers. Natural justice? Fairness? Equality? I think not. We employ officers to advise us but we are not required to take that advice. I have talked to both sides in the dispute before determining my position. It is as plain as the nose on your face why the drivers are angry. How would you feel if you received a phone call to tell you your means of earning a living had been terminated immediately, with no reasons given and with no right of appeal? My objections will be based on the fact that I do not believe that the directors of the TOA are "fit and proper persons" to be allocated another Taxi booking office licence. The big difference at the next hearing is that both sides will have their say, which will bring natural justice to the proceedings.

Thank you for your response Jim. I fully agree with your assessment of how the taxi TRADE operates. I can appreciate that most modern employers have these regulations in place and the taxi trade should, in theory, follow suit. But that’s my point, it’s not TOA that is the problem here, it’s the taxi trade in general that is in need of review.

At the time of these dismissals (which are the contractual equivalent of me parting ways with my window cleaner) TOA operated under this “Victorian” employment standard. Should these standards be changed? Maybe, but that’s another issue for another day. You can’t sign retrospective contracts. TOA acted in a way that they had every right to do and abided by the standards by which almost all other taxi companies operate. Drivers have been offered contracts and refused.

What do you expect of TOA? Are they to allow these drivers an appeal, keeping in mind they have absolutely no obligation to do so, after which they would probably be told where to go anyway because of their conduct?

Should they apply for a new licence under the stipulation that they must offer contracts to their drivers in future? Of course, surely these standards would have to be applied to every taxi company who applied for a licence, not just TOA, not just Wrights Taxis, but every taxi company. It can’t be one rule for some and another for others.

What should be done, Mr Bollan, is you should allow for this case to closed and instead focus your attention on changing the broader picture, instead of irrationally setting your sights on TOA and only TOA. These kinds of things happen in every taxi company. An earlier poster cited Wright’s Taxis as an example. Funnily enough, Mr Wright too has every right to do what he did under current legislation. You claim the TOA shareholders are not a “fit and proper person?”. Compared to which company in the UK?

I appreciate the points your making Jim, but TOA are not at fault here. The system in which TOA and most taxi companies operate has not been an issue until the last few months. Do you remember all of the protests and the accusations that led to this situation? They’ve been proven to be lies, an abundance of evidence have proven so. Any request put upon TOA has been cooperated with. TOA have acted professionally throughout this entire saga. It just seems that the sole purpose of these drivers and their supporters is to make a noise, at any cost. I would ask what exactly do YOU want and what exactly do THEY want? Don’t insult me with the sweeping statement of “justice for all” please.

The problem is Jim that, while I appreciate an opposing opinion, it has be be at least partially supportable.

To approach this as a neutral, having heard both sides and read all the evidence, it is impossible to come to the conclusion you have so swiftly come to. The impression I get, Mr Bollan, is that you made your mind up pretty early and there is no efficent sum of evidence that will change your mind.

I realise, as a Socialist, your prone to take the side of disgruntled workers, as I'm sure you've done in the past. But would you deny TOA a licence and, as you like to put it, withdrawing 150 drivers their livelihoods? And what for? Your version of justice seems to be revenge at all costs, in the face of all evidence.

I know you don't have to address these points, but I would appreciate it very much if you would.

I was approached about this 2 days after the first 2 drivers lost their jobs by the partner of one of the sacked drivers. I have met with board members of TOA and some sacked drivers. Ihave read all the press comments on both sides.I have read the memorandom and articles of association that govern the TOA and a load of other associated correspondence from both sides. Ihave met with the GMB trade union who represent the sacked drivers and who will also represent them at Employment Tribunals in Glasgow later this year. If TOA are not awarded the new licence noboddy will lose ther job as they currently have a licence to operate as an Association, but not as a private company. The TOA solicitor at the hearing could not provide any written evidence to support the sacking of any driver. Why? Because none exists.

thats right jim deflect and deny!!! you have closed your mind to any reasonable arguemunt/points put to you, i challenged you to provide proof of their employment where is it jim, you are also very selective on which points you reply to very few in fact.

Surely prior to any expectations of evidence regarding the “sacking” of an employee, you should expect the existence of proof of employment in the first place. They were never employed by TOA, how many different ways can it be phrased? What next Mr Bollan? Should I take my Sunday paperboy to a tribunal should he cease his service? That’s the level of lunacy you’re dealing with here.

In terms of all of the sources you have sought in coming to your conclusion, if you’ve failed to grasp their points in the same way you’ve failed to grasp mine, then I would question what you took from them?

Rational ThoughtIt does not matter how you dress it up, their means of earning a living was taken away based on hearsay. The employment tribunals will not accept hearsay they will require written evidence and witness statements which TOA used to sack these drivers/service users, call them whatever you feel confortable with.

jim toa was granted its licence to operate not because it is an asscociation but because the licencing and the councils legal officer conceded that the directors were/are fit and proper persons to run a taxi office, it makes no diference whether it is private a coperative or an asscociation,the only criteria is they must be fit and proper to do so,so as they were deemed fit and proper to run the office passed on 1/3/11 so unless you or they have anything new to object about from the time of that meeting and the next one then the licence should be approved.which brings me back to your motives for carrying on with this campaign,you said it was to get justice for the drivers who you feel have been wronged surely then they will get the chance at the employment tribunial. so therfor the only reason for objecting to toa"s licence is to punish toa in other words revenge!!.its not as if they would want to go back to toa as they are going to open their own office,so what diference does it make to you or them if toa are a private company!!i would be grateful if you could reply specificly to the points i have raised without generalising or soundbites.

Please don't suggest what my motives are. As a Socialist I know what is right and wrong. The report that went to committee on 1/3/2011 only told one side of the story and never gave a voice to the drivers, or objectors. The applicants and all the objectors will have their say at the next hearing and the committee will then make a democratic decision based on all the information they have in front of them.

I respect that you show and reply to these Jim, that is to your credit.

Since my last post I’ve been reading and I’ve been asking questions. I’m not a taxi driver, never have been, and I’m not associated with TOA in any way. Anything I know I’ve found out from reading evidence, reliable evidence, and asking questions, in theory the same position you’re in Jim. Clearly you’re refusing to accept that these drivers were never employed by TOA and that they were in fact self employed. I won’t go into that again because you don’t agree and clearly won’t change your mind. But just because there are two opinions doesn’t make them both correct. I’ve bombarded you with explanations, comparable examples and urged you to read the evidence. In return, you’ve gave me your moral opinion, built in the face of evidence and supported by nothing but the “sacked” drivers wildly warped view of the world.

From reading your responses thoroughly, which seem to cherry pick my questions and only deal with ones which your comfortable answering, I understand a lot of what your saying, but I still don’t know what you want from this. What do you TOA to from here? What evidence would have to be presented at this hearing to change your mind? Clearly your mind is made up going into this hearing so why even have it in the first place?

Your aims, much like the aims of the disgruntled drivers seem cloudy to me. Am I right in thinking that you believe that the TOA shareholders are “fit and proper persons” to hold a taxi licence, which you approved when you were apparently aware of the facts, as long as it’s not a licence for a private company? Why not object to any licence at all? Why not object to Allan Wright’s licence? Your objective seems to echo the protests of the drivers last year who also can’t decide what they want.

Remember, their first complaint was the selling of the company to gangsters, after which it was the stealing of money from the company, then it was having to pay ten pounds at Christmas to reward the hard working phone operators (which was a ridiculous, yet unsurprising inclusion in the Lennox Herald’s propaganda campaign). Either unfounded lies or petty proverbial scab picking.

Now of course it’s this issue with the drivers parting ways with their radios. If there is an issue here, which any rationally thinking human being could see there is not, surely it will be resolved at a tribunal. Do you know what you’re asked to bring to a tribunal? A copy of your contract and a payslip.

My overall point here that I can’t understand what you and the drivers want? Is the aim to drag this out for as long as possible, to do anything possible to make sure TOA doesn’t become privatized or are you doing a favour for a relative?

I would embrace that response if we were brainstorming slogan ideas for your newest campaign leaflets. Sweeping statements might win over some and shrug off others but they do nothing for me. For a beacon of transparency, you sure begrudge answering difficult questions. However I can respect that this is your blog, you don't have to say anything you don't want to.

If I could draw attention to your original post, your plea of support for the "10 sacked drivers" and giving their number the kind of publicity I was under the impression money coudn't buy. Three of said drivers handed in their radios without any request from TOA whatsoever. Of the remaining seven, only six are persuing a tribunal. Where is that missing individual? Is he not a "fit and proper person" worthy of a tribunal? Would you deny this new cooperative a licence should he be a founding member?

The thing about a contract is it protects both parties. Since there are no contracts, both parties can walk away at any time. The drivers can work whatever hours they choose, they can stop paying for the service should they go on holiday for a month. Additonally, the drivers can go on strike without any consultation with the TOA board, which they did with unyealding fury. Every single one of those drivers can walk away at any time, they can work without a radio, they can join another company, there are no notices required. It's not just the drivers who are vulnerable, Jim.

On the subject of evidence, what evidence have you seen that the drivers didn't simply hand in their radios and fabricate this whole story? In fact, three of them did! One of whom was kind enough to donate his tragic, yet entirely fictional, story to the reputable Lennox Herald. There is no such evidence, such is the nature of the taxi trade. It's their word against TOA's, granted the latter side has a biblical ammount of evidence supporting them.

This isn't court, Mr Bollan. I'm simply a concerned individual who is fearful that you are having a hand in a shameful and glaring miscarriage of justice. I ask you to settle my nerves with a convincing arguement. I would take your evasion as a betrayal of the principals you claim to have.

Would the inclusion of my name effect the validity of my points? I'm not a councillor, I'm not a taxi driver, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a jounarlist. I have nothing to lose or gain from either outcome of this entire saga. It's not me who claims to be transparent and honest, my evidence speaks for itself.

Another small point to mr Bollan, the radioless men have now taken shelter on the Asda taxi rank and steal hires that they do not pay for from that rank...it has been said by these people that it is an open rank and they can and will do what they want at this rank. the rank is paid for by the ordinary taxi drivers, the ones that want nothing to do with the rebel cause or the TOA's fight with them, just to make a living that the rebels are stealing from them....the new office has a motto of Equality, Fairness and Integrity...none of these fit their conduct at Adsa..in fact they have become much worse than the TOA have ever been....but as they say...it's different for them....bullies one and all.

I think that when this matter is all over, there should be an enquiry into the conduct of all councillors involved here. Why do they appear to be singling out this company when other more dubious companies operate unhindered?

Why are a few persons allowed so much influence over what the councillors do? Why are they allowed to slander this company and the councillors appear to take all this on board with no evidence whatsoever. And please don’t suggest again that T.O.A. take them to court for defamation. It must be obvious to you that this course of action is only for the rich and powerful in this county and that the ordinary man is prohibited from this course of action due to the legal costs involved.

What you and the drivers involved here do not realise is that TOA have a lot of support in this area and not everyone is gullible enough to believe everything that they read in the local paper. It also needs to be pointed out that the Lennox Herald has reported this matter with complete bias but I appreciate that when times are hard, you need to protect your advertising revenue at all costs!!

Finally, you say that no one will lose their jobs if this new licence is not granted as they already have a licence to operate. Maybe so, but what then, do they suddenly become fit and proper persons to hold a licence or is the hope that they will in fact be out of business before then.

I have just spent the last twenty mins reading your blog mr Bollan.The overall impression the page give me is that you still dont answer any of the key points asked infact your last comment is almost child like and slightly sarcastic.A reply like that i, would have expected more from a cllr.the whole point about being a self employed taxi driver is that if you choose just to work the streets and taxi ranks you can,working from any office is personal choice.

what is your position on bullying in the workplace jim,I only ask as one of the drivers you support managed to convince one of the owners that what toa was doing was illegal so convincing was he that he was convinced he would lose his home and livelehood the guy ended up an emotional wreck could not sleep properly he even convincrd him it would be in his best interests to divulge confidential information pertaining to the running of the company, but worse still he had without his knowlege recorded their conversation which he took great delight in playing to all and sundry on the various ranks,I think this was despicable behavior emmotionaland mental abuse/bullying at its worst,and before you start on about proof we all know how insidious bullying is and how difficult it is to prove but I can assure you it did happen I know it most drivers in the area know it happened I only highlight this to show you the type of people you are supporting.

Brian,Alleged bullies. There are always two sides to a story. It is this attitude of only listening to one side of a story and then declaring it as fact, that has led TOA into the mess you are currently in.

yes jim and also some of the other drivers still have a toa radio as i'm one of are getting fed up with the stealing of hires from asda(phoned hires then when the hire goes outside thinks that the radioless drivers are toa, they just take them stealing money from mine and other drivers pockets) i did have sympathy for them, but thought they went about it the wrong way i.e. abusive text messages(that the police have seen so that story is not fabricated)so concluding this i would ask the drivers who are not happy to leave, start another office or go to wright taxis

AnonymousIf the Police have abusive texts and they cause a breach of the peace then I am sure they will follow this up and charge those who sent them, which is something I would support.You give good advice to the drivers and they are in the process of setting up a Workers Coop where every member is equal and each member has a say and a vote. There will be written policies on every aspect of the business including a written grievance procedure with clear protocols laid down for everybody to see. As a Socialist I support workers taking control of their workplace and I hope the new venture will be successful. The capacity in the taxi trade will not rise significantly as a result of the Coop being set up so hopefully the trade will settle down again after what has been a difficult period for all concerned.

yeah well you still didn't address the problem i commented on about the stealing of work from asda which concerns me most, when an office expands you are always likely to bring in troublemakers who aren't happy with anything so it takes a bit of time to get rid of the them so that the others can harmonise.i've read through your previous comments and realised that you've ducked most of the main questions that have been asked of you(which you also done with this one)

i've already explained how the theft of work happens(though you and everyone else who has never been in the taxi trade couldn't possibly understand)in the comment previous to this.the radioless( i think you should accept by now that they were not sacked, i mean it's been 57 comments and you still can't grasp it) drivers are losing sympathy amongst the other drivers through this,

I have used TOA for over 20yrs, in my opinion it has been a well run organisation......and a safe service especially to women who are on their own , coming home from a night out......to go back to taxis turning up for fares ....no thanks, because this is what is happening. How many years has it taken for this trust to be built up ? Do the breakaway drivers think this can be all done overnight, sorry , in my opinion it does not happen like that , I for one will be sticking to what I know......and that will be done in trust.....

Have been reading blogs, on this situation, ....would have backed you up jim on most things, but regarding this..,.........has anyone given consideration to the customers, women especially, how many years does it take to build up a business, an efficient and safe business.......e.g. women on their own coming home from a night out.... TOA have earned this trust, all this arguing, 10 think this will happen overnight, can someone enlighten them, it takes years to build this trust ....do you think women on their own will jump into a taxi, because its sitting there, to me thats dangerous, and that is what is happening,,,,,,this has got to be stopped, that is going back the way instead of forward. All this, is damaging to an already decent taxi service............so for goodness sake will you all stop and think of the customers. The very reason radios were put in taxis,and having to phone for a taxi, knowing where they're going and having the destination on screen all leads to a safer and trustworthy service, but Im reading here , that you are agreeing to the breakaway group, as you call it earning a living by doing that very thing,,,,,,,I'm sorry but I beleive I speak for a lot of people, who remember when it was'nt safe to get in a taxi. If this is allowed to continue, I am sure before we know it any tom dick or harry, will be driving taxis.......and then what will happen......a concerned customer

Anonymous,If you have any information on any unlicensed taxi driver picking hires up please pass this information to the Police and WDC licensing authorities. The new taxi drivers coop, the first in Scotland, will have state of the art communications systems to provide a full safe 24 hour service. The drivers who were sacked by TOA still have a licence to take hires from ranks, and this is what they are doing to earn a living and pay the bills after having their contracts terminated up by TOA. Their new booking office will be up and running soon and hires will then be booked by telephone as normal. I respect your view and hope you will respect the position I have adopted.

now there you go jim, do you have any evidence of a contract that was terminated?i'm a driver also and pay for a radio with toa, and i don't have a contract with toa, and also they don't have a contract with me eitherthe previous comments about booked hires is correct and yes they have the right to pick up from the streets, but the customer(especially women alone) usually calls a reputable company so they know who is taking them home, so all i can say is if you are waiting on a TOA taxi it is usually either got a TOA roofsign or TOA livery,and the same will go for wright taxis.if you are going to reply please reply to all my statements and not only the last one!

firstly let me explain before you mislead the public anymore!the new taxi drivers coop has a membership fee of 300 per carstate of the art radio equipment costs around £100,000(yes one hundred thousand)the last meeting they had 35 people turned up to which i was one of them(i'm not going so that leaves 34 x £300 you do the math)in actual fact the equipment they have is not state of the art.i respect your position on this as supporting the worker but lies or misleading information does not help they're cause as we all get found out in the end(the radio equipment they have is the same system that castle cabs started with some 8yrs or so ago which they binned shortly after starting as it was not good enough)

have been reading all the comments on this page, what I cant understand is WHY after over 20years running a taxi firm, that people trust and have served their customers well, have you jim and others , particularly our Local Paper, turned so badly against them. I have never read such bias reporting in a paper, they should be ashamed of themselves. I for one are sick of all the slagging TOA have been getting, I am a Female customer, who has and always will use them. Let the drivers who are not happy go and try a new business, then they will see how hard it is to run a company. The people who run TOA have worked hard for over 20 years to build up a good reliable business, and I for one will only phone them .

YES JIM TOA AND A.DRIVER, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WHICH TOA SUPPLIED WORK AND A.DRIVER PAID WEEKLY FOR THE MEANS TO GET THE WORK VIA RADIO, BUT TOA RESERVE THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THIS SERVICE AT ANY TIME, ALSO A.DRIVER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL AND RETURN SAID RADIO AT ANY TIME(NO BREACH OF CONTRACT THERE)NOTE THE WEEKLY WHICH IS HOW LONG SAID CONTRACT LASTS FOR, NOW PLEASE STOP SHIMMYING ABOUT AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PUT TO YOU WITHOUT THE SMOKESCREEN AND ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ANSWER

Anonymous,To receive a phone call telling you your contract is terminated for hearsay allegations made against you without any investigation, due process or right of appeal would I believe be seen by any reasonable independent person, to be a clear breach of contract.

like i said before, the same drivers(yes all of them) have in the past handed in their radios and left to go to another office, without giving toa notice, or the right to reason with them to stay, so contracts do work both ways and that is exactly the reason none of the drivers who rent a radio want a contract(including me)

Anonymous,I understand the point you are making but having a contract does not mean it is written on a bit of paper. A contract can be stated or implied or written, this is how the law in Scotland defines a contract. If I buy something from Argos or ASDA, I have a contract with that company in case the goods are not as stated. Thanks for your comments on the Blog.

as usual jim you miss the point completly,if as you say toa are in breach of contract then the correct course of action they should take is through the civil courts!not an employment tribunial as they were never employed.one other thing all this smear campaign by the drivers and helped greatly by the lennox herald only started after a certain rival taxi company opened in direct opposition to toa, this company has spent vast sums of money on advertising with the lennox but you fail to see that there could be some corralation in the fact that for 20 years toa had operated without any complaints or controversy. you of all people should know about biased press reporting having been on the wrong end of it yourself, it saddens me that so many otherwise sensible people have been taken in by this smear campaign.

Brian,If you think the Lennox Herald reporting has been biased or they supported a smear campaign then report them to the PCC (Press Complaints Commission). It is a free service so will not cost TOA a penny.

i think that the public in general know what is right from wrong, the taxi drivers coop will give anyone who wants to leave somewhere to go if they don't want to go to wright taxis(which i personally think is the better option)then finally at last we can draw a line under this, there will be no tribunal as they do not have any payslips, or contract of employment(which tribunals need as i have been there)and toa are fit and proper people to run an office as they have done for 20yrs, so this"notice was up for 2days, then down, then up nonsense, also people driving past 3 times a day and telling lies(pity the camera at the mo doesn't have 21days of sign in the window footage as it the police have the big HD due to fit and proper people helping them with enquiries, but thew next time it will)how someone can be fit and proper to run one taxi firm and not for others is beyond me! hope the COOP is squeaky clean

as usual jim you refuse to give an answer or opinion to the points I put to you. on the issue of the alleged contracts surely this should be persued through the courts. what do you think? as to the pcc I have already made enquiries. what I was hoping for was your feelings or your opinions of the points put to you instead of the condescending answers as if you are replying to a 5 year old!.please try and answer without sounding like a politicion.

I know for a fact that the notice was up for the full 21 days jim so do all the office staff 14 of them,and several drivers but you are on record as stating it was not,so either you are lying jim or I and all the people I have mentioned above are so what is it then?.

Brian,A contract does not need to go to court it should be resolved between both parties if there are any contractural issues. The problem was TOA acted as judge and jury as far as the sacked drivers were concerned.

Brian,I told the truth and stand by every word I said so make of that what you want. The Committee of 7 never believed the TOA story either, as they instructed you to display the notice for the 21 consecutiive days required by the Act...something I am glad to say you have complied with to date at the second time of asking.

well all i can say is jim that i'm one of the drivers who seen the notice on the window everytime i was at the office(but i only work 6days a week they must have took it down when i knocked off)also i would swear to that in court(i work the office rank so thats why i seen it)

well as i couldn't prove it was or wasn't there all the time it doesn't matter now(just seems pointless putting it up then taking it down, then up again when there is no hidden agenda and the same people are holding a license just now, so it would make the council look silly and also make the public think there is a something underhand going on if they are rejected for another reason this time), but as a previous comment said "if the larger hard drive wasn't being used as police evidence(due to being fit and proper persons) on a security van robbery, they would have the 21 days recorded. but i dare say they will this timei must admit without being rude that i honestly don't know why anyone has bothered asking questions as very little questions are being answered on this blog

that's just nonsense jim and you know it,you've responded to every comment as it was made, so you read every comment as it was made(so therefore there is no need to sift through as you put it)the actual fact is that there are just some questions you would rather not answer or you would have

Anonymous,I am not the fountain of all knowledge as some anonymous subscribers to this blog seem to think I am. I have made myself fully accessible and accountable publicly, as I promised I would do when elected. I also understand that it is impossible to please all the people... all of the time.

anonymous? if you don't want people to go anon, just remove the option from your blog.some people go anon as the are friends with all or some of the drivers who either left or had their radio's took back, but still have the view that the ones who had their radios taken back brought it on themselves.you jim don't know anything about the taxi business and other people who haven't worked in the taxi business know the same.i as a taxi driver with toa hope the whole things ends soon and the drivers who are going, go soon

No. I want to be open and transparent and accessible. That would not happen if I restricted access. Like yourself I hope the Taxi trade settles down soon. It should after the next taxi licencing committee meeting.

I, being one who worked for TOA know that the ones who were ''booted'' were booted for viable reasons. Those outside the company, really dont know what has happened. You hear hearsay's and rumours, and take that as Gospel.

''A lie can run around the world before the truth can get it's boots on. ''--James Watt.

jim, how many times do we have drag thru all this as the wdc legal department have already published the reasons why the 7 had their radios taken back(to the rightful owners may i add),so every time something happens, or someone has a radio taken back, does toa have to justify themselves to all and sundry?everything is done legally and they've proven it at every time of asking! like an earlier post commented' just because a lie is repeated over and over doesn't make it the truth'the drivers who are going to the new coop would be as well going soon as if it fails they won't have as many options left and had better get all hands to the pumps from the start.i'm speaking as a non-taxi driver who was taxiing and been through operating an office as a shareholder with another dumbarton based office

Anonymous,You said these drivers were "booted out for "viable" reasons" your words. You also said "Those outside the company don't really know what has happened." Your words again. I am outside the company...so this is your chance to explain in each case of the 8 drivers what were sacked what the "viable" reason was? Heard there was a wee bit of a dispute the other day outside ASDA between some TOA Directors and sacked drivers and the Council's licensing officers had to attend to sort it out.

I apologise for neglecting your blog, Jim. In a way, I would only be repeating myself in my search for answers as to date you haven't touched on the majority of points I have made. However I would stress that the points are still there to be read by you and your growing fanbase and to be argued against, should you feel you have enough of an arguement to present.

To my eternal delight you did mention something that I deemed interesting enough to read up on, which is that a contract is either "written, stated or implied". Now, as the almost grand total of one hundred posts have hopefully told us, they most definetly aren't written. So which is it, stated or implied? For talking sake, let us assume that it is implied contracts we're dealing with.

A driver pays his way in on Monday. He recieves a service for one week (implied by the term "weekly radio rental") until the following monday when the whole thing is repeated. The contract (and I begrudge even humouring that word) begins on monday and lasts until the following Monday. After which it's finished. Done. Irrelevant. Filed in the same folder as last weeks cinema and train tickets.

This is the case with long term TOA drivers. Former Leven and District drivers however recieve their weeks service first and pay for it afterwards. This is because, following the buy over of Leven and District, TOA didn't want to burden the new drivers with two radio rental charges in the one week. Any one of the drivers in this situation could easily take a weeks service, leave TOA and refuse to pay. What other company puts their neck out for their customers like that JIm?

Now I would ask you to read this paragraph very carefully. What TOA have done here is they have allowed the drivers' one week contract to run out and have opted not to enter into a new contract the following week, similar to a footballer leaving a club on a bosman (I'm not suggesting these guys could command a transfer fee of any kind). There is no contract, written, stated or implied, in breach here.

If you think I'm incorrect in my assessment, please deliver a response which would cause me to recoil and reassess my position, instead of copying and pasting from a teenager's Facebook lol.

The key question still remains. If your assumption is right about the contract which I doubt, to prove there was no discrimination by TOA stated written reasons should have been supplied to the 8 sacked drivers advising why the contract was being terminated, whilst other drivers on the same contractural terms were not.

They weren't "sacked". Their contracts weren't "terminated". Read what I'm saying Jim. I really resent talking about an implied contract because the concept just doesn't fit this scenario here, but for the sake of appealing to your viewpoint I will.

The drivers rely on the service from the radio rented from TOA for hires. TOA rely on the drivers to service their callers and to pay costs. The agreement of paying for the weeks radio rental is mutually beneficial. The agreement begins on Monday and ends a week later, it is not assumed that this aggreement will continue indefinitely.

If proceedings were as you describe them, drivers would be refused the right to stop using the TOA's services whenever they chose to. They wouldn't be able to suspend their payments for a month while they went on a family holiday for a month. What about when droves of drivers flock to this new taxi office like Mecca? Is that fair on TOA? No, it's ridiculous, but you aren't interested in the idea of a breach of contract when TOA is on the recieving end.

There were no sackings. No contracts terminated. If a contract did exist, it's a weekly one which, after coming to end as contracts do, TOA took the personal choice not to enter into a new one, in the same way that the drivers can take the personal choice not to use TOA'S services. For every one of your constituents who take the personal choice not to vote for you at the next election, do you want a written explanation as to why that is the case?

I'm sorry, have I evaded a question? It can be said that the rudest evasion in a debate is to answer a question with another question. Again, many apologies if you feel that I have bulldozed over a valid point you have made.

I answered your point on discrimination. Do you deem a constituent's choice to vote for a different councillor over you to be discrimination? Do you feel hard done by, do you demand written evidence explaining why another councillor, an equal human being, was their choice over you? There's nothing sinister about it Jim. Human's make choices, it doesn't mean that for every chosen option there is a discriminated alternative.

TOA have a large number of drivers using their service. They can cap how many people to whom they provide service, for example if their work is reduced due to a malicious smear campaign. Their ceasing doing business with some people, they don't need a reason to choose from one person to another. They have their reasons, but of course you want voice recordings, transcripts which are named and dated, video footage. Get real Jim, your asking for evidence that they don't have to provide. You're worshipping gaps.

I've answered yours Jim, now answer mine. Are the two parties working on a week to week basis or are they indefintely commited to each other until one party runs the other into the ground?

I think you are losing the plot a wee bit with the analogy about voting for someone, and losing your means of earning a living. I find that bizzare. I disagree that "TOA don't need a reason to choose between one person from another". Workers have rights and protections these days and long may it continue. The sooner we weed out organisations like TOA with their Victorian employment values the better. A contract is a contract and TOA should have provided written reasons why the contract was being terminated. Not video recordings, not transcripts, not voice recordings, just a wee letter, to much to ask?

By weeding out companies like TOA, surely you mean weeding out the taxi industry in it's entirety? Or do you only have one bullet in your sniper rifle? Most taxi companies operate in this way. Wrights taxis operate in this way, Leven Taxis operated in this way and believe whatever fairy tales you like Jim, but this new company will operate in this way too. Does it not occur to you that taxi companies are like this, not because owners and directors enjoy playing evil business tycoons, playing with peoples lives willy nilly, but because it benefits everyone involved. EVERYONE.

Is this what it's came down to? Your entire arguement, your objection to a new a licence, your claim that the TOA board are not fit and proper persons. All of this because they didn't write them a letter? They don't have to follow such procedures. They've done nothing wrong. Even if they did write a letter, you would have sourced another scab to pick, I have no doubt.

Tell me this Jim, what evidence (letters, voice recordings, carved bronze statues) do you have to prove that the drivers didn't walk away? Not only that, but without handing TOA a notice a month in advance? Outragous. But of course, their word is enough.

The reason my analogies seem ridiculous is because they shed light on how ridiculous your argument is, Jim.

Most Taxi Companies operate this way you say...that does not make it right. Everybody used to send children up chimneys so that must have been alright? I have spoke to the 8 drivers. I have also spoke to 2 Directors of TOA. None of the 8 drivers were given written reasons for dismissal. None of them were presented with any evidence written or otherwise to support the allegations made against them. No process is in place for an investigation to take place to ascetain the facts. The sacked 8 were not allowed to state their side of events. There is no right of appeal. TOA are judge and jury...do you want me to continue? I am a Socialist and a member of a Union all my adult life and will support any Constituent or worker who seeks my assistance to fight discrimination.

I could ask for evidence that you had sought these sources, such as which directors you speak of, but that would be childish would it not?

Jim, you imply that I think the system is right. I'm not saying I do, but everyone operates under the same system. Your dislike of the taxi TRADE should prompt you to challenge it legally. Make moves to change licencing laws if you feel so strongly, instead of plowing forth against the evidence of the councils own legal team like a political vigilante (that means someone who uses illegal force to achieve their own warped interpretation of justice). You offend me when you speak of discrimination when you are commiting of a glaring case of it yourself.

If I could unmodestly quote myself:

"I've answered yours Jim, now answer mine. Are the two parties working on a week to week basis or are they indefintely commited to each other until one party runs the other into the ground?"Any thoughts?

I have already answered the point you made about a contract...it might not be the answer you hoped for but there you go that's democracy. Im a Cllr. It is Parliament that writes the laws...we just implement them. My salary as an opposition Cllr is £16,000 I would not get very far in a Court with that income. The two Directors were Bryan Rainey and Iain Dennett who came to see me at one of my surgeries. Can you enlighten me on what "illegal force I have used"?

Jim as a working taxi driver I read your blog on the regular mostly when sitting outside a club waiting on a hire.nothing cheers me up more than most of my hires when are you going to realise you would have more joy tackling the whole taxi trade/system than picking on the one office.why is it ok for 1 taxi company to revoke a radio on hearsay but different with another any chance of a straight answer

I will confess that "illegal" is the wrong word. If you feel that I am questioning your motives to that extent, that was not my intention. What you're doing is not illegal, but it is immoral.

You're discriminating against one party over another. You're setting standards, retrospectively might I add, for TOA that you do not expect from any other company. Or to be specific, you're discriminating against TOA as a private company, as apparently there were no issues with the existing company recieving a licence. To compound the degree of inbalance in your research, I should bring it to your attention that I was informed Brian Rainey and Iain Dennett aren't directors. Maybe you should ask John Berry and actually listen to what he has to say?

You said it yourself, "it is Parliament that writes the laws... we just implement them". Well if that's the case, stop fighting an irrational battle and taking the law into your own hands. The law is against you on this one. Unfortunately Jim, regardless of how good an arguement I put to you and how little you have to base your decision, it is only you has has a vote at this hearing and it saddens me as a young, hopeful Scot that a politition would be so insulated in his mentality that he would discriminate, operating in such an underhand and bias manner, based on your opinion, based on a deluded vision that your fighting for the working man.

yes jim you did speak to myself and ian we approached you to give our side of the dispute.right from the start you said you were disgusted with toa and nothing we would have said that day would have changed the view that you have stubbornly stuck to,in other words jim you had already made up your mind only having heard their side of things,you have proven that no matter what argument is put to you toa will always be in the wrong,also you advised me to go down the legal route regarding the slanderous statements about toa members my salary is not any more than yours jim nor is toa awash with money,you advised us to do it jim knowing full well unless you are very wealthy that course of action is impossible,very disingeneous of you!! otherwise we would have done it a long time ago

The law in Scotland is quite clear on contracts. If you purchase services or goods then you have a contract which is either written, implied or stated. Quote.

The services are rented NOT purchased. They can't have been sacked because they were never employed. This really isn't too difficult to understand, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

Their attack on TOA is a jealous rage, the complete rubbish they have made up is a smoke screen to hide their despicable behavior and ambitions. All accusations against TOA are unfounded and have been proven as such. What do they have over you Jim ? You appear to be reasonably intelligent, why do you let these ego maniacs influence you so much ? Take a step back and have a proper look.

Kenny,I received a constituents enquiry from one of the first drivers to be sacked by TOA. That is how I became involved. I never selected the Taxi company to take to task, it so happened to be TOA. If any driver with any other Taxi company has been treated in the same way and is one of my Constituents then please get them to come to one of my surgeries and I will take their case up for them.

Anonymous,Your interpretation of a contract would mean that because I rent my home from a housing ass i don't have a contract? I have looked at both sides of the argument and as a Socialist and a Trade Unionist my analysis is that the drivers have been discriminated against. There is no hidden agendas. Nobody has holds over anybody. This is about fairness and equality in the workplace. It might be other things to other people on both sides of the divide but I have no axe to grind other that what I have stated above.

Rational thought,Please see my reply to Kenny. My understanding is that Bryan and Iain are Directors of the new company and are recorded as such in the new application? I will bring this error to the attention of the licensing officer in the morning. I am not a member nor have ever been a member of the licensing committee. I do not have a vote.

Losing your right to earn a living is a traumatic time for any worker even if due process has been followed, which in this case it was not. Natural justice was missing from how these drivers were treated, that is the bottom line for me as a Socialist. That is what motivates me. If people see me as gullable because I support the wronged or the underdog, then that is more of a problem for them..than for me.

Did they tell you about their plot to oust the TOA committee of ~ 1 year ago ? No ? I didn't think so. Their plan was to remove the committee not only out of office but out the door. What was done to them was exactly what they had planned for the committee. These are devious duplicitous people who have stirred up resentment against TOA for their own ends. You've been duped Jim, they've not been hard done to, they've got their comeuppance.

Anonymous,Are you now saying the real reason the 8 were sacked was because they tried to oust the committee and replace them with new office bearers? So all the other hearsay allegations given to the WDC legal manager were just a smokescreen...or worse lies?

No ! All the other allegations are well founded. It isn't possible to rhyme the whole screed of everything they were up to on a blog. If you're going to attack on their behalf and disregard all that has been said before then you obviously aren't as impartial as you would like us to think. As for TOA's application not being up for 21 days as you would swear to ....Thanks Jim, I imagine you have just blogged your way out of re-election.

Anonymous,I think we are beginning to see the real reasons trickle out why these 8 drivers were sacked. The truth will always out. There is a lot more regarding this case to surface in the future...so time will tell. You are right at the end of the day the voters always decide at the ballot box...thats democracy and I will be judged on my actions.

Sorry Jim but I think you go to far here. Why should a councillor be interested in the weekly surplus of a private company. What possible concern is that of you or any other councillor. I think you would not be asking this question of Wrights or the new taxi firm. Its really staring to look like a personal campaign by someone against this firm.

Anonymous,It is a straight forward question in relation to Bryan's view that TOA do not have any money to take the sacked drivers to Court for alleged slander, nothing sinister in the question. Incidentally TOA is an Association not a private company. If TOA secure their new licence they will then be able to operate as a private company.

Rational thought,Why were the 8 drivers not released the previous week? How were the particular 8 drivers selected for release from their contract? Why was it not another 8different drivers? Why was it not 50 drivers?

No sorry your not being straight. No business in this area has the funds to take someone to Court for slander. The inference was that they have something to hide just as you say that there is a lot more to this case to surface in the future. As for it being an Association, it matters not, their finances are still a private matter and of no concern to councillors.

Answering questions with questions is a shallow arguement Jim. What have I said that's incorrect? What I gather from your response is that you agree entirely with everything I have said, but you want a reason for the timing and the choice of these perfectly rational decisions.

Two people go for a job interview. Person A is deemed beneficial to the company, Person B is deemed harmful. This impression could be anything from their attitude to whether they had given a fictional story about the board the week previous. There is only one position. Needless to say, Person A gets the contract. No evidence is required beyond the interviewer's opinion, based on what impression he gets and what he feels is best for the company. Person B doesn't take the company to a tribunal because they refused to do dealings with him, he doesn't go to the local newspaper, he doesn't run to his councillor. Don't say this isn't a relevant analogy because it seems pretty spot on to me.

In terms of the timing of the decision, I don't see how it has any bearing whatsoever.

I've kindly answered your questions without you having answered mine. Please see my previous post (and allow it to be seen by others, I don't know if it's invisibility is simply an oversight by you, as you've been fair in that respect so far).

I will concead that every debate throws up different opinions and everyone's entitled to their's, regardless of how ridiculous they may seem to others. Where's the harm? Well, in this case, you're particular opinion will be leading you to object a licence application from a company, which is far from a victimless action. When taking such action, surely it can be expected that you would have approached this rationally. Your reason for this objection is vague to me. I'm intelligent enough and rational enough to listen to an arguement I don't agree with and understand it, so I should ask you to explain in a differant way?

I'm constantly having to search for ways of explaining my arguement differantly, because you seem to take great pleasure in paving over them with daisy-scented sweeping statements which, to me, have no substance. Either you have a genuine case which you're not explaining properly or you have no case at all, in which case I should congradulate you for ducking and weaving your way through 125 comments.

I don't mean to sound aggressive or patronising, it's just my way of explaining things. I would like to pose the following arguement to you. I know you don't agree, but I want to understand what you think is incorrect.

TOA does not employ any of their drivers, the drivers rent a service on a week to week basis. The business dealing starts on Monday and ends the following Monday. Stay with me Jim. In theory, TOA could rent out only ten radios one week, then 120 the next (in theory remember, don't panic). They're not employing drivers, their doing business with them for a WEEK. It is entirely an internal matter who a company does and does not do dealings with.

I have a question for you Jim. If there is some sort of implied contract in play here, does it not last for one week? Or does this contract have a clause that it must be automatically and indefinitely be resigned over and over? My arguement is that TOA decided not to enter into an agreement with some indivduals, which as citizens they had the right to do. Your branding people improper persons for making a bog standard business decision. What have I said that you disagree with exactly?

I'm sorry Jim. I really am trying to come up with the perfect analogy. All I can do is make comparisons regarding specific aspects with various other situations and professions, as taxi radio rental is unlike many that others might have experienced. Considering you best analogy is forcing a child up a chimney, I think I've done rather well.

jim no business would be foolish enough to post confidential information on a public forum for any of their competitors to peruse.on a similar theme you said so much for openess and transparency. are you aware the new company that you laude as a fountain of openess fairness and transparency where everyone is equal why is it only the five directors of the company who will have access to the company accounts,? what have they got to hide? and how is that equal? if you want to see evidence of this this i am sure in the intersts of openess they will let you see a copy if not you can pop into the toa office and i can show you our copy we got from company house.ps jim its brian with an I not a y

What kind of answer is that! You are the one who said and I quote “I am out in the open, acces able, accountable and transparent”. So if there is something about the TOA that you know that everyone else doesn’t then why not state it here for everyone’s benefit.

Brian,Just thought you might want to prove that TOA does not have the resources to take a libel action against some or all of the sacked drivers. My understanding of the way Coop Taxis will be set up and organised is that every driver will have a vote in how the business is constitued and ran. Given I am not a member I will have no influence or say in these matters.

well jim,i'm a taxi owner/operator, and i also ashareholder in a taxi(as in taxi not cab) office in hertfordshire, that was alerted to this blog from a friend in alexandria. and i'm just going to state that is the way taxi offices work.the driver rents a radio on a week to week basis, so if one or the other decides to terminate the contract at the end of the week(NOTE "ONE OR THE OTHER") its done. i think you either don't know a thing about the taxi trade or else you have an alterior motive. i've dealt with politicians before so i don't expect you to answer(as in your opinion, not "the fountain of knowledge" as you say)!

Peter,Because this is the way Taxi offices have always worked...does not make it right or acceptable. Children and chimneys come to mind. A situation where all the power is held by the owner is unacceptable and needs to be challenged which I am trying to do in my own small way at a local level and as you will appreciate I am a small cog in a big wheel with little influence.

Ah of course, how is it you put it? You want to "weed out companies like TOA". The same TOA who has been the most reputable taxi company in the area for decades. The same TOA that is more than happy to present their books to any authority that wishes to glance upon them. The same TOA that, for too long, sat back and allowed a cancerous element to operate within it's ranks, offering them evidence to quell their irrational bloodlust, only to be met with a hundred fingers wedged in a hundred ears.

Jim, I beg of you, present me with a better example of a well run taxi office in Scotland than TOA. You'd find it far easier to produce a list of, shall we say, questionable offices. What can TOA do to improve? You're the prime example of how much easier it is as a polition to be in the opposing party. Always quick to critisise, regardless of how good something is in comparison and always without an alternative.

These drivers won't get far with a tribunal, they have nothing to gain from this. They have a shiney new office, a paradise of equality, transparency and lolly pops, what concern is it of your saintly constituents what lies in the future for TOA? It is my assumption that you have nothing to gain from this either. So my conclusion must be that your only goal is to ensure TOA don't become privitized. Why discriminate like this Jim? Answer me why?

Tell me I'm wrong. Convince me I'm wrong. Remember, talk of transparency and chimneys didn't shut me up the first time, it won't do it this time.

Rational thought,I am not really to interested in what happens in taxi booking offices in other parts of Scotland. I am interested in what happens in these offices in the Leven Ward. I am also interested and will represent Constituents who I feel have been wronged. Time will tell if TOA is sold to the highest bidder. Coop Taxis could be the alternative, one member one vote. All drivers are shareholders. It could be the way forward. It is the first in Scotland and might just begin to highlight and expose the Taxi trade as it is currently operated.

It sounds like a wonderful concept, it really does. You should go into advertising, Jim. However, it would be a concept with a future if it's pioneers were a little more respectable. Took a stroll past their new centre of operations. I must say, their threatening slogans and hangman's noose graphics on the window are a wonderful identity to be adopting.

Did you happen to catch the headline the Lennox Herald ran with this week? If you haven't, I'll be kind enough to provide the link.

A taxi war? Which side seem the more militant to you, Jim? TOA just want to be left alone, end of story. Should we wait to see how it pans out over the next two years? What exactly did you mean by that, Jim? Because compared to the shallow statements you've given throughout this blog, that particular statement had a smug aura about it...

Jim I don't see why you are blind to the smear campaign that has been thrust upon toa since well before Xmas.week in week out toa have been slandered in the local paper and have done everything asked of them on the case of transparicy.let me ask you Jim how would feel if you had campaigners who you thought were dropping vote for bollan leaflets through doors yet really they were dropping a entirely different candidates leaflets.wouldn't that merit a withdrawel of the said canvassers service.

Kenny,If there is anything that borders on slander in a local paper especially the Lennox then their Solicitor would not allow it to be printed...believe me I have been blocked on a few ocassions from having material printed. TOA are no saints in this dispute. I respect your right to hold your view...but do not agree with it. There are always two sides to an argument.

like i said, jim i've dealt with politicians before and you conveniently overlooked the "one or the other" part of my comment. the point i was making is that it suits both parties(week to week basis) so either can terminate at the end of the week, which usually happens with drivers leaving and going elsewhere(and can i add that you don't very often see politicians chasing up the drivers who left without giving notice)

Jim, I find it very strange how you can come to the conclusion that the people who have run TOA for many years and who have provided which most people would say has been a first class service are now not fit to run it any longer. What criteria did you apply while working this out ?. Have you applied the same critera to the people who wll be runnng the new office ? Have any of these people ran a taxi office before ? What provsion has the new office for wheelchair users, do they have purpose built vehicles and if so how many ? Have you stopped to thnk on the ordinary TOA drivers whose jobs you could well be putting at risk by telling people not to phone TOA. You have also been very economical with the truth by saying they have been deprived of earning a living when they clearly still have their taxis and can therefor work !

I see. Might I request at this stage that before you make this your template response to every question posted to you, that you read over the previous 153 comments and realise that there was no wrongdoing the first time and there is no wrongdoing now.

And incidentally, there was more than one opinion on whether the earth is round or flat, that argument was settled with evidence and just a little rational thought.

In addition, can I insist that you don't get caught up quoting my poetic word choice as some sort of evidence that I am a raving lunatic? I use metaphors and analogies where you would normally slot a well rehearsed, automatic and empty statement.

You said earlier that you don't like the idea of a company's owners "having all the power", I would like to make the point that they have no more power than the drivers do. When this new office opens and a number of drivers "terminate their contract" as you like to put it, as some already have done last week, shouldn't TOA feel aggrieved? You, Councillor Jim Bollan, cannot insist that TOA does dealings with drivers, no more than you can insist that drivers do dealings with TOA.

I don't expect a fresh response to this Jim, as any previous response you've given ignores logic and reason and I don't expect a change in your standards in the near future.

well jim, another useless reply to my comment before, when i don't need updated as i was on holiday and staying with a friend(who may i add, is friends with both sides of this debate). i would like you're opinion on a taxi driver leaving one office and moving to another without any notice or giving the first ofiice a chance to persuade them to stay

You mention in one of your previous blogs that “If” TOA get their new licence. My point is that if they do not and when, as stated by the Council’s legal advisors, they take their case to the Sherriff Court where they will win with costs awarded to them. Then as a Council Tax payer, I will be furious that the Council’s funds are being wasted by Councillors on the Licensing Committee who are working on their own agenda and not for the benefit of the Council Tax payer.

jim i understand your answer but i must say you never adressed the point again i might add seems pointless carrying on posting on your blog as a 5 year old would give a more justified answer.your opponents in the elections must be quietly rubbing their hands in joy.just feel lucky jim you dont have to appear on telivised debates as anybody watching would be cringing for you.sad to say i dont think i will be posting anymore on your blog as you either skirt the question or come out with child like comments.very dissapointed no wonder people dont use there votes as cllrs like yourself only ever evade the point in question.

Anonymous,There is a lot of if's and but's in you last post. Can we just wait and see what happens. It is difficult enough trying to deal with the here and now never mind trying to predict what might happen in the future. Officers are paid to give advice. Cllr's are not obliged to take that advice. I am sure there will be a lot of twists and turns to this case before it ends. The next Council elections are in May 2012 that is when you will be able to vote me out as a Cllr.

yes jim, if it's mutually agreed i don't have a problem with it!but if the taxi office doesn't want the driver to go, but the driver doesn't like the way the office is run and leaves without notice and not mutually agreed on both parts

and in response to your reply to kenny, i see that with most of your responses.think you should take a long hard look at this subject on your blog and realise that noone bar the first three agree with your views

Peter,I don't recognise the scenario you describe, in the cases I am dealing with it is alleged some drivers received a phone call telling them they no longer had a job and other had the radio cut from the office. Slightly different from the beginning of your post.

yeah jim 8 in total! where do you get that figure?i reckon 3, and you fine know it's 3!what do they contribute to the debate? and ask yourself why!i think everyone else who has posted om this subject knows why

Jim,As one of the many drivers who work with TOA and are perfectly happy with the way it is being run may i say i am delighted TOA have finally taken action against the drivers who have been causing so much unrest. You have no idea of the things these people were doing to undermine the office where they worked and the office which they are now crying about being sacked from. While working for TOA some of these people were giving out cards for the new office to customers who had phoned TOA for a taxi,which in turn is basically trying to steal work off not just the office but ordinary drivers like me.

Unfortunately, I’m not in your ward to vote you out, however one of the Councillors on the Licensing Committee is and I will certainly not be voting for him. As to officers being employed to give advice, yes Councillors do not have to heed this, but on the basis that this is legal advice by people obviously more informed than the Councillors, then my point still stands, it is not in the interest of the council tax payers to ignore this.

Anonymous,I am glad you are happy with your employer. When the drivers were sacked by TOA they did not want to go to the other Taxi firm in the area and as they have bills to pay and families to feed they had to ensure they could earn a living.

Anonymous,Solicitors are there to give advice, I am quite capable of analysing a situation and making my own mind up. To take your suggestion to it's logical conclusion it might be just as well to get rid of the 22 Cllr's and let the officers make the decisions based on their professional advice? Incidentally the legal managers current advice is that it is legal to refuse a licence for a Taxi booking office if you can demonstrate that the applicants are not "fit and proper persons" to hold such a licence.

So Jim in response to your last comment that they didnt want to go to the other office then please enlighten me to why they so viciously attacked and dragged TOA's reputation through the papers in the months leading up to their departure from TOA and running to you with their pettied lip out so you could feel sorry for the hard done too taxi drivers as i cant figure it out.

That’s not a bad idea to get rid of the 22 councillors! As for determining if the office is “fit and proper” I think you will find that the legal advisors confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that they were not.

Jim you are supporting them after all the slander and lies they printed and you deam them fit and proper persons too hold a taxi booking office licence over TOA! So i have to ask Jim how gullible are you that you a cllr have been takin in by their hard done too stories that they were wronged by TOA after their hate campaign collapsed around them?? And please dont patronize me Jim by sayin that your a socialist and support the hard done too workers as thats wearing as thin as your child up a chimney statement!!!

Austin,Alleged slander and lies. I am not on the taxi licensing committee and therefore will have no say in whether Coop Taxis get a licence to operate a booking office. I take it from your comments about the sacked drivers that you have submitted an objection to their application for a licence?

I would have to refer again to the legal report. Nothing has changed, the further 5 drivers are in the same position as the original 10. Legally it is a private matter for TOA and their drivers and of no concern of the Council.

a) the malcontents (they love that title) departed from TOA's roster BEFORE TOA were granted their existing licence, meaning that was not a concern regarding the existing licence, so that arguement is a non starter.

b) "Quite a few things have changed since the legal manager gave that ruling", "more drivers sacked" since then? So your entire arguement over the past few months were in anticipation of an event which occured two days ago? This is ludicrious, Jim.

what exactly are you talking about with the statement their actions since the granting of their last license"?they have done nothing wrong in taking back radio systems that belong to them and are hired on a week to week basis.this thing with you is getting a bit personal and ridiculus.what exactly are you talking about with the statement their actions since the granting of their last license"?(i'm asking the question twice so you don't get sidetracked by my other statement)

sorry jim, if we're going to be pedantic about it, i made the mistake and was referring to the comment where you said the first license(but you also made another comment where you said toa have only had one license and are currently applying for their second) so i'll ask the question again as you are just hiding from the question.what exactly are you talking about with the statement their actions since the granting of their first license"?

From the cradle to the grave,can be built if we are brave,a haven abune them awcalled RENTON.

Branch Meetings

Dumbarton & the Vale of Leven Branch of the SSP meet on the third Wed of every Month at 7.00pm in the Carman Centre 175 Main Street Renton.

People sign SSP petition

People wait in line to sign the petition to save the Vale Hospital which the SSP have on the regular stalls we hold in Dumbarton & Alexandria town centres.(The wee baldy guy on the left is the best branch organiser in Scotland, Les Robertson)

Hard at work?

The family pet our wee dug Oskar always gets in the photo!

Demo Leven Cottage

Supporters of the six months sit-in gather to offer their support and solidarity to Robert & Annie. L to R Tommy Heaney, George McFarlane, Rachael Daly, Betty McKillop, Anne Lynch & John Daly.

Robert Toole

Sadly Robert Toole (pictured above) a Socialist who fought for his rights against eviction from his home Leven Cottage and won, died suddenly recently after a short illness. Robert was and remains an inspiration to all who struggle against the system for their rights! The Vale and Leven Cottage his home will be a sadder place without Robert. I was honoured and privledged to have known Robert.

Annie Cardiff

Sadly Annie passed away on 8th August 2007 in her 86th year. Annie will remain an inspiration to us all by winning her eviction battle against a Labour Council who tried to evict her from her home of 26 years....Leven Cottage in Alexandria. Annie will be sadly missed by all who met her. She was a lovely reserved woman who cherished others and put her family and friends before herself. Annie was a star and will remain in the hearts of thousands of local people who came to know and love her over the years in Leven Cottage.